"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[Datajack Franit]

Originally posted by Ramo
Most interesting article I've seen on this:

[q]August 10, 2006

Six Lessons from the London Airline Bombing Plot

What we now know about the London-based plot to destroy ten civilian airplanes points to six conclusions.

First, what stopped this plot was law enforcement. Law enforcement. Not a military invasion of Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, or Iraq. Old-fashioned surveillance, development of human sources, putting pieces together, and cooperation with foreign police and intelligence services.

This is the only thing I can agree with

Second, the conspiracy—if it resembles the London bombings of last summer—will likely be home-grown, another of the growing jihad "fashion" in Europe that comprises the new street gangs of this world. It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return. Under different cirucmstances, it could be Tamils or Red Brigades or Michigan Militiamen, and has been.

It is not fundamentalism trying to destroy planes packed with infidels? I guess yes, it´s about resentment, so we have to get rid of everything that may offend Muslim integralists.

Christmas no, better, the whole depraved Christian religion. Check
Jews. Check
Israel. Check
USA. Check
Homosexuals. Check
Women´s rights. Check
Danish cartoons. Check

Third, if al Qaeda was involved (allegedly from Pakistan), we can thank the failure of the war in Afghanistan and the cozying up to Musharraf to destroy them.

We can actually thank Mr. Osama as HE was the first to attack the US soil. If I remember correctly, 9/11 happened before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Fourth, there was no involvement by any American-based “cells,” according the FBI Director Robert Mueller. As many of us have been saying for nearly five years, and as the 9/11 Commission Report showed, there is virtually no plausible American jihad organization at work, and never has been.

But there is a British based jihad organization at work, that´s much better! Now we can sleep well, if we didn´t find those cells, it´s because they don´t exist PHEW1111

Fifth, the plot again reveals how ill-equipped the U.S. Government has been in anticipating plausible attack scenarios and taking steps to prevent them. Liquid bombs were so hard to figure out? Al Qaeda already tried it. DHS has almost completely missed the threat, just as they are missing the vulnerability of cargo holds and God knows what else. Thomas Kean, the former GOP governor and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, called this liquid bomb error “appalling” and wondered, on an NBC program four months ago, why no progress had been made. What are the tens of billions being spent on? This is Katrina II.

It is impossible to prevent a terrorist attack planned by a single individual trying to put a bomb in a single target, if he´s not a part of an active cell, recruiting members and planning an attack. The previously London bombings weren´t stopped as they were carried secretly by cells that were unrelated to Al-Qaeda and managed to build rudimental bombs. How can a government stop me if I decide to put a bomb on the subway tomorrow morning, if nobody knows about it?

Sixth, and most important, we must end our involvement in Iraq and sharply refocus our presence in the region. The war president’s approach is not working. It’s a diversion from the real threat. It’s a spur to bitter revenge. It’s a big feedback loop that will endanger us for years, if not decades. Our lives are now at stake because the Bush catastrophe has created thousands of new terrorists.

Good strategy, let´s abandon Iraq, and let´s hope Iran doesn´t try to turn it into a new Syria-Lebanon deal. I guess why the Allies didn´t abandon Germany right after Berlin fell?

[Datajack Franit]

Oh and one last thing about integration

[Toby Rowe]

Ramo,

You talk a lot of sense, I too wondered if Clinton had been in charge would we now be reading our same headlines.
US obsession with Oil "and damn the consequences", the hawks that abvise this man day by day, a US military that is unable to comphrend the meaning or "hearts and mind", plus a military thrown in at the deep-end as Bush wished it so, and on that date.

The US military cannot think beyond a military victory whilst the President incorrectly orders a military to perform a job it simply hasn't been trained to do (keep a peace and rebuild the infrastructure the bombers just destroyed 2 days earlier, without reason)

I'm not sitting here with 30oC heat, without electricity in a nation that has 70% unemployment suffering foreign soldiers bossing me around, but if I was even I might pick up a rifle out of anger. Oh yeah and shouting that only the US army knows how to do- Why don't they just simply talk when needed, no other NATO army shouts like them- are Yanks all deaf or something?!!!

Toby ;-)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sava
And don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not claiming this plot is a fake or whatever. My point is clearly that whenever a situation like this occurs, a government should follow proper judicial procedures and afford suspects in such conspiracies the same rights to due process that anyone else would normarly be given.

I'm not saying anything about whether or not this plot is for real or not.

My feeling is, the authorities had reasonable intelligence indicating an attack was in the works or imminent, and they acted accordingly. Now that they have arrested the suspects, they need to sort out how each person is involved, the level of involvement, and prosecute these people in a court of law. If they are guilty of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism, they should go away to a PTITA prison...

But I'm not about to agree to giving any government the green light to just arrest people and hold them indefinitely without such due process. That is contrary to the principles of freedom.

Relax, Sava. These are the Brits, not your guys.

[Urban Ranger]

Have the Brits shown some evidence (e.g. them "liquid bombs") on TV?

[notyoueither]

Last I heard a court of law was the proper place to present evidence.

[Toby Rowe]

Odin,

At 6am I didn't get my weather report for the day as the BBC was so thrilled with the news they actually binned the weather and news to report this "breaking news" via a 5.30am COBRA report they got told about.

Got home at 6.30pm and it was still "breaking news" I don't quite understand how "breaking news" managed to last for 12 hours. The Beeb is now crap.

BBC: I want my £125 back please- youre crap.

To repeat myself like you BBC, you really are crap.

Toby

[Barnabas]

You know, I ve never met a muslim, so I dont have much experience with this, I dont know if they are as crazy as they seem on the news, or it is only a few percent of them

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
Most interesting article I've seen on this:

August 10, 2006

Six Lessons from the London Airline Bombing Plot

What we now know about the London-based plot to destroy ten civilian airplanes points to six conclusions.

First, what stopped this plot was law enforcement. Law enforcement. Not a military invasion of Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, or Iraq. Old-fashioned surveillance, development of human sources, putting pieces together, and cooperation with foreign police and intelligence services.

Second, the conspiracy—if it resembles the London bombings of last summer—will likely be home-grown, another of the growing jihad "fashion" in Europe that comprises the new street gangs of this world. It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return. Under different cirucmstances, it could be Tamils or Red Brigades or Michigan Militiamen, and has been.

Third, if al Qaeda was involved (allegedly from Pakistan), we can thank the failure of the war in Afghanistan and the cozying up to Musharraf to destroy them.

Fourth, there was no involvement by any American-based “cells,” according the FBI Director Robert Mueller. As many of us have been saying for nearly five years, and as the 9/11 Commission Report showed, there is virtually no plausible American jihad organization at work, and never has been.

Fifth, the plot again reveals how ill-equipped the U.S. Government has been in anticipating plausible attack scenarios and taking steps to prevent them. Liquid bombs were so hard to figure out? Al Qaeda already tried it. DHS has almost completely missed the threat, just as they are missing the vulnerability of cargo holds and God knows what else. Thomas Kean, the former GOP governor and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, called this liquid bomb error “appalling” and wondered, on an NBC program four months ago, why no progress had been made. What are the tens of billions being spent on? This is Katrina II.

Sixth, and most important, we must end our involvement in Iraq and sharply refocus our presence in the region. The war president’s approach is not working. It’s a diversion from the real threat. It’s a spur to bitter revenge. It’s a big feedback loop that will endanger us for years, if not decades. Our lives are now at stake because the Bush catastrophe has created thousands of new terrorists.

Naturally, the politically expedient are trying to gain an edge. Defeated Senator Joseph Lieberman immediately attacked his victorious primary challenger Ned Lamont, saying that Lamont’s leave Iraq policy is somehow connected to this. It’s the opposite—the war distracts and inflames. We will see the crowing from the Bushies now, when in fact they were again asleep at the wheel, only this time the Brits saved the day. The war v. law enforcement contrast—remember how John Kerry was ridiculed by Cheney for suggesting that aggressive police work and human intelligence were anti-terror linchpins?—is now buried by conflating the “war against terror” in Iraq with this Scotland Yard and MI5 success.

Reversing America’s colossally destructive series of interventions in the Middle East—a cause, a trigger, a recruitment fountain, and a charity for jihad—will require an entirely different mindset, not just an adjustment or a measured retreat. When America responded, after being prodded, to the tsunami victims in Indonesia early last year, it profoundly changed Indonesians’ views of the United States. New attitudes of support and cooperation suddenly sprang forth. This “natural experiment” should be examined to learn from, possibly to emulate, in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.

We’re now viewed as destroyers, and destruction is the retort. This is the “new Middle East” that is aborning—one of relentless violence—if we do not end our own relentless violence there. The would-be bombers in London are a reminder of how close it is.

--- John Tirman

http://www.johntirman.com/Insight%20jump.html

It's also apparant that a guy that the Brits picked up (and turned) last year was instrumental in uncovering the plot. It's important to note that double agents aren't acquired through the harsh interrogation practices that Dear Leader is so fond of, but through compassion and due process.

All the reports I've read indicate the necessary pieces of evidence for the investigative law enforcement to be so effective were along lines of intercepted international phone calls and following internation financial transactions. Couldn't be those are actually effective techniques could they?

[Ramo]

Yes they could. With a warrant or some other sort of judicial supervision. And within the law. I haven't seen anything that indicates that these are undue burdens.

I like the 4th Amendment. I'd rather not be subject to arbitrary searches solely by the will of the executive. The protections against that sort of thing are part of what make this society worth defending.

DF, I'll get to your post later.

[Ramo]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit

It is not fundamentalism trying to destroy planes packed with infidels? I guess yes, it´s about resentment, so we have to get rid of everything that may offend Muslim integralists.

Christmas no, better, the whole depraved Christian religion. Check
Jews. Check
Israel. Check
USA. Check
Homosexuals. Check
Women´s rights. Check
Danish cartoons. Check

You have to be extraordinarily naive to think that Western pluralism is what primarily motivates Jihadis to committ acts of terror.

We can actually thank Mr. Osama as HE was the first to attack the US soil. If I remember correctly, 9/11 happened before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Total non-sequitur. Has absolutely nothing to do what the point that the man's trying to make (i.e. we probably need to redouble our efforts in Afghanistan).

But there is a British based jihad organization at work, that´s much better! Now we can sleep well, if we didn´t find those cells, it´s because they don´t exist PHEW1111

See above. I know this might be strange idea to you, but in coming up with a strategy in dealing with terror threats, you actually do need a reasonably good idea about what the hell you're dealing with. Of course, you could also assume that all Muslims are terrorists, but that might be rather counterproductive.

It is impossible to prevent a terrorist attack planned by a single individual trying to put a bomb in a single target, if he´s not a part of an active cell, recruiting members and planning an attack. The previously London bombings weren´t stopped as they were carried secretly by cells that were unrelated to Al-Qaeda and managed to build rudimental bombs. How can a government stop me if I decide to put a bomb on the subway tomorrow morning, if nobody knows about it?

Again, I'm not sure who you're arguing against, but it ain't the author. He was pointing out that it's a shame that our policy did not take into account liquid explosives, despite its prior uses in terror plots and the recommendations of i.e. 9/11 Commsissioners. Similarly, we probably ought to beef up port security.

Good strategy, let´s abandon Iraq, and let´s hope Iran doesn´t try to turn it into a new Syria-Lebanon deal. I guess why the Allies didn´t abandon Germany right after Berlin fell?

I don't know if you've noticed, but that's Iraq's current trajectory, regardless of whether we stay. The Iraqi political consensus seems heading towards a de-facto partition at this point, with an Iranian satellite in the South (as quoted by an anonymous minister in the gov't). Hakim, one of the pillars of the gov't, has been strongly pimping his Shia Confederacy. The Kurds seem poised at taking Kirkuk in the referendum. Maliki doesn't want us messing with the Mahdi Army (lead by Sadr, another pillar of the gov't).

Anyways, I don't have a clear opinion on what to do in Iraq at this point, so I'll refrain from defending the author's suggestion. All I can say is that the current policy is FUBAR, and it's a terrible shame that we got in, in the first place (and it's a greater shame that the war wasn't prosecuted much more competently).

[Ramo]

Just to clarify things, the anonymous quote is about the partition, not the satellite status.

[Lodi]

You have to be extraordinarily naive to think that Western pluralism is what primarily motivates Jihadis to committ acts of terror.

Good point Ramo. Such as it might be caused by what some Western governments had done in the past, such as the CIA overthrowing Mossadeq in Iran.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes they could. With a warrant or some other sort of judicial supervision. And within the law. I haven't seen anything that indicates that these are undue burdens.

I like the 4th Amendment. I'd rather not be subject to arbitrary searches solely by the will of the executive. The protections against that sort of thing are part of what make this society worth defending.

DF, I'll get to your post later.

The point of my post was not so much the legality and constitutionality of NSA wiretaps a point where you and I will never see eye to ey, but moreso your supposed claims that disclosure of SWIFT was not damaging (as supposedly it was ineffective).

[chequita guevara]

If discolusre of SWIFT was damaging, then Bush already let the cat out of the bag in 2004, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Maybe that way it will finally get into your brain.

Also, in cases of national security, the Feds actually have the authority to stop the publication of something, so if SWIFT was that important, they could have sought and obtained an injunction.

Or maybe you're just trying to score ignorant political points as if the destruction of our rights was some sort of game.